Forum Replies Created
-
As Vinnie Barbarino once said, “I’m so confused!”
;>)
We don’t disagree about what artists have done through the years, centuries, millennia. Yes, there is endless recreation, recombining, alteration to go with the creation. That is a part of the deal, the process, the making of art. I think where things went off-track is that I did take your comments as totalizing. They did strike me as “you’re wrong. I’m right. That’s a fact, Jack, and there is no other way to look at this.”
We also use different words to express different things, when it comes to “art,” which is kind of a sacred thing to me. I have no religion. Am an atheist, and a “No gods, no Masters” sorta guy. But “art”? That’s about as close as I get to thinking that there is something “divine” in this world. And, yeah, I’m exaggerating here to make a point.
So when I see the word, I think of genius and the extraordinary and the “original,” to the degree possible. I don’t see all attempts at “art” as being “art.” Most, in fact, fail. And because of that, I can’t give a filmmaker an automatic pass at slicing and dicing source material to his or her heart’s content. It has to actually make sense within the world they depict; it has to actually rise to “art,” in order for me to call it that.
I didn’t see that at all with the movie Troy. I saw it as willful and self-indulgent change for change’s sake, and a far cry from the power of the source material.
Basically, when something is so brilliant already, so self-contained, while sending us into a multitude of other directions, why change it? It’s far more than the old “if it aint broke, don’t fix it,” thing. A gazillion levels beyond that. It’s why mess with virtual perfection (beyond minor variations) at all? Why not just try to bring it, intact, to a new audience — that is a major achievement in and of itself, IMO.
ZN,
Not going by “argument from authority.” Was responding to your insistence that you know what art is, and I supposedly don’t. My first degree was in Art Studio, with a minor in Art History. I know the “history” part too. I also have never stopped studying the history of the humanities in general, and have more than enough credits for a degree in Literature, and an MFA if I want to go back. I was taught music while young, with an emphasis on its history, too. We both have strong backgrounds on the subject. You teach it. I could teach it. And so on.
Again, I don’t think we’re even talking about the same thing here, though I am getting the idea that we disagree on what qualifies as “art.”
Oh, well. This too shall pass.
You really take the cake. Your lack of sincerity and my wasting my time addressing it sure makes me the fool. Have you been living under a rock since Obama was elected?
You’re making it personal, bnw. I’m absolutely sincere in what I’ve written.
Beyond that: you posted one Op Ed, by Elizabeth Price Foley, who works at Cato, and is an advocate for the Tea Party. Just one editorial. That proves nothing. She is also one of the leads in the lawsuit by the House against the ACA.
Come on. Please find articles that have at least a little bit of objectivity to support your claims.
Not sure if it’s particularly useful to say “the racism was always there.” Perhaps. But a key here is that the two parties really are quite different now when it comes to dealing with racism and bigotry. It’s one of the few, real areas of difference. Of course, it wasn’t always that way. Pre-1960s Dems were filled with racists, especially in the South, where they owned that part of the political map. The Republicans own it now. But, it’s really the religious right that swung the balance throughout the country. They decided to “get political” primarily as a reaction to federal efforts to desegregate schools (especially Bob Jones University), businesses, workplaces, etc.
So one party has made a conscious effort to just flat out make the appearance of racism and bigotry unacceptable. The other hasn’t. The other, in fact, encourages it, primarily as a way to deflect attention from its donor class — the real reason for everyone’s economic woes. It’s the 1%, and the system they control, that screws everyone over. Not brown and black peoples, or women.
The Dems have yet to make that clear, though Sanders has started the shift for the Dems. But the GOP is still of the mind to consciously scapegoat POCs, along with the entire public sector, which, for many Republicans, are synonymous.
Boiled down: Trump is just using the GOP playbook, without the usual filters. He has no filters. Which is part of his appeal. The thing is, however, he doesn’t have any policies or programs, either, and every speech he gives is just incoherent word salad, like Sarah Palin. So his supporters are mostly just projecting their own fears and dreams onto him.
WV,
Am with you on that. I don’t have the energy for arguments these days, either. Though, every now and then, things boil up inside me and it comes out. Then I go back inside, way inside, and think: Why on earth did I bother? It’s not worth it, etc.
Too old, too tired, too many other things to do — too many much better things to do. So, yeah. I get that.
Also: I’m obviously new to this version of the board, and I don’t know bnw, really, at all. So I probably shouldn’t have included him with the general group I referred to. I also think it’s preferable to try to find common ground if it’s there. So, basically, just ignore what I said.
:>)
Beyond all of that: You’ve always been far more patient online, with all kinds of different people, and I give your props for that. I think I do a pretty good job of that in the real world, but not always online. Something to work on.
Anyway . . .
In solidarity.
Anyway, back to my point — which was NOT about what ‘label’ we arbitrarily chose — the point is, do you understand that we are NOT Democrats. And do you understand that there are such things as “leftists” (or whatever label u want to use) who cant stand Obama, Clinton, the Republicans and the rest of the “system” politicians. Do you get that? Not lecturing here, just asking if you get that?
WV, I think you’re asking too much from “conservatives,” who really aren’t conservatives anymore. They’re right-wing radicals. The current American iteration is well to the right of the Reagan conservative, and they keep moving to the right. They pretty much do this each time the Dems stake out more of their old territory — which is constant — and feel the need to always and forever be to their right. The Dems are now planted firmly on the center-right, own it, after it was vacated by Republicans. The Republicans have in turn purged their ranks of the old guard, the Eisenhower Republicans, etc. . . . even the McCain of 2000 version.
This new breed of faux-conservative has been brainwashed to unprecedented degrees for forty years, and pretty much everything is the End of the World!!! for them. The slightest move from the Federal government means the Apocalypse is nigh. Reagan played into this with his talk about Medicare meaning the total end of all freedom for Americans. And with Obama? A year before he took office, you had large numbers of Republicans thinking he was the anti-christ. That number is roughly 25% now. Majorities believed he was foreign-born, a Muslim, a secret agent sent to destroy America, a Marxist, socialist, bogeyman, etc. etc.
They were fed this nonsense 24/7 by hate radio, their churches, and their reps, and it’s never stopped. This is why they can never see Obama for what he is — a true conservative, an pre-Reagan Republican. They’ve been told for years and years that he was, quite literally, the devil, that he “palled around with terrorists,” that he’s a Muslim secret agent, blah blah blah.
So they’re just never going to see how lucky they were that he was elected. They got an actual conservative in office, who implemented actual conservative policies, most of them falling waaaaay short, which was to be expected. But who gets the blame? “The left.” Even though Obama implemented center-right government. They couldn’t have written a better script.
And while you’re obviously, self-evidently correct about the massive gulf between leftists and Obama, if you spend any time on “conservative” websites or websites with large participation by “conservatives,” it’s pretty much an article of faith among them that Obama is “far left,” as are the Dems in generally. They simply believe in the myths, legends and propaganda handed down to them from hate radio, the Birchers, the religiously wrong, the Randians and so on. Now, bnw may not be like his peers, but I haven’t seen any evidence that he differs from them on this issue. He thought it was absurd when I said Obama has governed as a conservative — which he has — and I don’t think he’ll ever understand that the Republican party is no longer conservative in the slightest. It’s a radical, far-right party now. The Dems are now the true conservatives in America.
Obama doesn’t,t govern as a conservative! how bizarre!
Bizarre, fer sure. But it’s true. Obama has governed as a conservative.
Of course, no American president has ever governed with complete ideological consistency/purity. But, overall, the vast majority of Obama’s policies and proposals would have been supported by Republicans, as is, if he were a Republican. In many ways, in fact, Obama has been a much better Republican than presidents Reagan, Bush Sr. and Dubya.
As in: Obama pushed for massive deficit reduction and a deficit commission in the midst of a terrible economic downturn. He oversaw the loss of 800,000 public sector jobs during that downturn. He froze federal pay and hiring during that downturn. Reagan, Bush Sr. and Dubya all wildly increased spending in the face of recessions; oversaw the hiring of more than one million new public sector employees, each, on their respective watches; and they never held deficit commissions.
Obama re-upped the (supposedly temporary) Bush tax cuts twice and made them permanent. He rehired Bush’s Fed chairman, and his defense secretary. He kept Bush’s bailouts of Wall Street and Detroit going. He never went after Wall Street crooks, shielding them from prosecution. He shielded Bush/Cheney and their respective admins from prosecution, when they easily could have and should have been frog-marched into the Hague.
He expanded the Bush wars, increased the size and scope of the “GWOT.” He expanded the surveillance state, and went after Occupy. He pushed for TPP and other very conservative trade agreements. His state department was/is aggressive in ramming capitalism down the throats of other nations, especially in Central and South America, advocating (for our capitalists) the privatization of public sector after public sector.
The ACA is a very conservative law, based on the Heritage Foundation proposal, later implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Obama and the Dems prevented any talk of Single Payer, and kicked even the public option under the bus. Rather than try to resolve our health care debacle through non-profit, universal care, he and the Dems chose the “market solutions” approach, by keeping it for-profit and selective, which is why it’s so expensive in the first place.
The above is just for starters.
I’m pretty confident you can’t name any of his policies that aren’t conservative, outside a coupla “culture war” things like Same Sex Marriage. When I bring this up to conservatives, they never can. But they still insist Obama is a “liberal,” despite the record.
I first bumped into Hanauer via his TED talk.
The thing is, while he is a breath of fresh air, he doesn’t show how to fix this mess, either. He’s of the “reform it, don’t end it” school, which is preferable to the current mode, but still falls waaay short.
In reality, in a properly functioning, moral, humane, sustainable economy, no one should ever be able to accrue vast fortunes — even if their purpose is to someday give it all away to charity. And if employers paid employees fair wages, they couldn’t. It’s mathematically impossible. Vast fortunes are only possible because of the massive difference between workers’ pay and the value of their production. The massive difference comes from unpaid labor, essentially. Close that gap, match up surplus value with wages, end the legal practice of unpaid labor, and no capitalist can make his or her personal fortune.
Another key. Watch any movie about the rich. Think about their interactions with all “the little people” along the way . . . the waiters, maids, go-fers, taxi drivers, bellhops, etc. etc. . . . the armies of the seen and unseen “downstairs” folk. Ask yourself how long rich people would keep their vast hoardings if they had to pay fair wages to all of these people they interact with.
Our system is set up to make life very, very nice for the wealthy, all across the board, 24/7, in millions of ways, big and small . . . . not only because they can legally treat their own employees like slaves, but everyone else’s, too. Extreme wage suppression is a part of the woodwork, and it’s what keeps the rich rich — in myriad ways. The system itself endlessly reproduces fundamental, profound inequality and unfairness at pretty much every turn.
